Competitive Cheerleading Not a Sport.

[Forsakia]

Before I get banned for verbally killing Arborlawn for his antedeluvian views on male/female relations (provided he is serious about them), I leave you with this ...

Replacing volleyball with competitive cheerleading!? I'm with the judge on this one.

http://backporch.fanhouse.com/2010/07/2 ... a-sport%2F

Cheerleading is the most dangerous highschool sport, so they're hardcore at the least.

Iirc there's an ulterior reason behind that.

Namely that while American Football, Basketball, etc have all sorts of requirements regarding equipment, coaching qualifications etc designed to ensure safety of the participants. Cheerleading doesn't. Generally speaking anyone can teach it, regardless of whether they know the correct technique for making sure that girl you're throwing up in the air doesn't come down on her head or not.

If Cheerleading was designated a sport and had to follow the same regulations as most sports do then for a start you'd probably see a large reduction in the number of schools offering it. But the injuries should be a scandal, rather than an apparent point of pride over their hardcore-ness.

[Bottle]

Of course it's not a sport. As stated in the article cheerleadings primary purpose is ti support other teams. Secondly cheerleading is an individual displays of showmanship then subjectively judged. An art or music compition would not be a sport.

To me a sport fits the following criteria: a) relatively high level of athleticism, b) competive, c) defined rules, no judging, scoring/tallying of some form, with dos and don'ts of playing, d) can't be too reliant on equipment (bats,balls,helmets,goals,gloves,etc. are fine. No NASCAR; you must exert the energy to put things in play, e) shouldn't be too violent, there should be some fouls/penalties to keep things from getting out of hand (boxing and wrestling are exceptions), f) as with most things someone should be slightly better at it, the sport should have different levels h.s,colleges,minors,pros, g) it should be able to be tweaked to become more accesible for different areas,age groups, climates etc. For example ice hockey in an arena canove ti a frozen lake or floor hockey in a gym or park on rollerblades or on foot, or with a ball instead of a puck.

Preferably it a team sport but that doesn't exclude it.

I can't see how modern cheerleading competitions fail to meet any of your standards, except #3 which I don't think is remotely valid.

1) Competitive cheerleading requires, if anything, MORE athleticism than sports like basketball...after all, basketball players toss a ball around, while competitive cheerleaders toss EACH OTHER around.
2) Cheerleading is as competitive as any other sport. That is to say, at some schools cheerleading is no big deal, it's just some girls in uniforms who wave pompoms, but in other schools it's a hard core sport. In some high schools, football is a competitive sport, while at my high school our football team hadn't won a game in over a decade and our team frequently took to the field wearing marching band uniforms as a running gag.
3) Since when is something not a sport simply because it involves judges? That would mean that 90% of OLYMPIC SPORTS aren't sports.
4) Cheerleading relies on far, far less equipment than sports like hockey or baseball. Indeed, the primary "equipment" expense for competitive cheerleaders is their uniforms!
5) For one thing, cheerleading is a helluva lot less violent than football or hockey. But, more importantly, fuck that noise about how a sport can't be violent. I'm Minnesotan, motherfuckers, and if there isn't blood on the ice at the end of a hockey game then I'm demanding my damn money back.
6) Cheerleading absolutely has "levels." Of course, those levels aren't officially codified...BECAUSE IT ISN'T RECOGNIZED AS A SPORT. You know why softball has "divisions" and "state finals" and stuff? Because it's recognized AS A SPORT, so the state runs championships and shit like that.
7) Are you seriously going to try to argue that cheerleading isn't "tweakable" in that way? Hell, you don't even need a special field with lines on it in order to do cheerleading.

Here's the real problem:

Women's sports are so undervalued that cheering on the (male) sports teams at their school has been one of the few opportunities open to young women. Yet, over the last 20 years, competitive cheerleaders have taken pom-pom shaking and turned it into a hybrid of dance and gymnastics, and have turned a side-line hobby into a sport in its own right. But good luck to them in getting their sport recognized, because if there's one thing we can all be sure of it's that something automatically STOPS being a "real sport" the moment girls prove that they can do it, and any activity in which girls can out-perform boys is definitely not a "real sport" (by definition, because boys are better at sports than girls, doncha know). Cheerleading has belonged to girls and women for years, so I don't believe there's much chance of it every being recognized as a "real sport."

[Maurepas]

Of course it's not a sport. As stated in the article cheerleadings primary purpose is ti support other teams. Secondly cheerleading is an individual displays of showmanship then subjectively judged. An art or music compition would not be a sport.

To me a sport fits the following criteria: a) relatively high level of athleticism, b) competive, c) defined rules, no judging, scoring/tallying of some form, with dos and don'ts of playing, d) can't be too reliant on equipment (bats,balls,helmets,goals,gloves,etc. are fine. No NASCAR; you must exert the energy to put things in play, e) shouldn't be too violent, there should be some fouls/penalties to keep things from getting out of hand (boxing and wrestling are exceptions), f) as with most things someone should be slightly better at it, the sport should have different levels h.s,colleges,minors,pros, g) it should be able to be tweaked to become more accesible for different areas,age groups, climates etc. For example ice hockey in an arena canove ti a frozen lake or floor hockey in a gym or park on rollerblades or on foot, or with a ball instead of a puck.

Preferably it a team sport but that doesn't exclude it.

I can't see how modern cheerleading competitions fail to meet any of your standards, except #3 which I don't think is remotely valid.

1) Competitive cheerleading requires, if anything, MORE athleticism than sports like basketball...after all, basketball players toss a ball around, while competitive cheerleaders toss EACH OTHER around.
2) Cheerleading is as competitive as any other sport. That is to say, at some schools cheerleading is no big deal, it's just some girls in uniforms who wave pompoms, but in other schools it's a hard core sport. In some high schools, football is a competitive sport, while at my high school our football team hadn't won a game in over a decade and our team frequently took to the field wearing marching band uniforms as a running gag.
3) Since when is something not a sport simply because it involves judges? That would mean that 90% of OLYMPIC SPORTS aren't sports.
4) Cheerleading relies on far, far less equipment than sports like hockey or baseball. Indeed, the primary "equipment" expense for competitive cheerleaders is their uniforms!
5) For one thing, cheerleading is a helluva lot less violent than football or hockey. But, more importantly, fuck that noise about how a sport can't be violent. I'm Minnesotan, motherfuckers, and if there isn't blood on the ice at the end of a hockey game then I'm demanding my damn money back.
6) Cheerleading absolutely has "levels." Of course, those levels aren't officially codified...BECAUSE IT ISN'T RECOGNIZED AS A SPORT. You know why softball has "divisions" and "state finals" and stuff? Because it's recognized AS A SPORT, so the state runs championships and shit like that.
7) Are you seriously going to try to argue that cheerleading isn't "tweakable" in that way? Hell, you don't even need a special field with lines on it in order to do cheerleading.

Here's the real problem:

Women's sports are so undervalued that cheering on the (male) sports teams at their school has been one of the few opportunities open to young women. Yet, over the last 20 years, competitive cheerleaders have taken pom-pom shaking and turned it into a hybrid of dance and gymnastics, and have turned a side-line hobby into a sport in its own right. But good luck to them in getting their sport recognized, because if there's one thing we can all be sure of it's that something automatically STOPS being a "real sport" the moment girls prove that they can do it, and any activity in which girls can out-perform boys is definitely not a "real sport" (by definition, because boys are better at sports than girls, doncha know). Cheerleading has belonged to girls and women for years, so I don't believe there's much chance of it every being recognized as a "real sport."

Idk, the best cheerleader on our school's team when I was in highschool, according to the other cheerleaders, was a guy.

[Bottle]

Of course it's not a sport. As stated in the article cheerleadings primary purpose is ti support other teams. Secondly cheerleading is an individual displays of showmanship then subjectively judged. An art or music compition would not be a sport.

To me a sport fits the following criteria: a) relatively high level of athleticism, b) competive, c) defined rules, no judging, scoring/tallying of some form, with dos and don'ts of playing, d) can't be too reliant on equipment (bats,balls,helmets,goals,gloves,etc. are fine. No NASCAR; you must exert the energy to put things in play, e) shouldn't be too violent, there should be some fouls/penalties to keep things from getting out of hand (boxing and wrestling are exceptions), f) as with most things someone should be slightly better at it, the sport should have different levels h.s,colleges,minors,pros, g) it should be able to be tweaked to become more accesible for different areas,age groups, climates etc. For example ice hockey in an arena canove ti a frozen lake or floor hockey in a gym or park on rollerblades or on foot, or with a ball instead of a puck.

Preferably it a team sport but that doesn't exclude it.

I can't see how modern cheerleading competitions fail to meet any of your standards, except #3 which I don't think is remotely valid.

1) Competitive cheerleading requires, if anything, MORE athleticism than sports like basketball...after all, basketball players toss a ball around, while competitive cheerleaders toss EACH OTHER around.
2) Cheerleading is as competitive as any other sport. That is to say, at some schools cheerleading is no big deal, it's just some girls in uniforms who wave pompoms, but in other schools it's a hard core sport. In some high schools, football is a competitive sport, while at my high school our football team hadn't won a game in over a decade and our team frequently took to the field wearing marching band uniforms as a running gag.
3) Since when is something not a sport simply because it involves judges? That would mean that 90% of OLYMPIC SPORTS aren't sports.
4) Cheerleading relies on far, far less equipment than sports like hockey or baseball. Indeed, the primary "equipment" expense for competitive cheerleaders is their uniforms!
5) For one thing, cheerleading is a helluva lot less violent than football or hockey. But, more importantly, fuck that noise about how a sport can't be violent. I'm Minnesotan, motherfuckers, and if there isn't blood on the ice at the end of a hockey game then I'm demanding my damn money back.
6) Cheerleading absolutely has "levels." Of course, those levels aren't officially codified...BECAUSE IT ISN'T RECOGNIZED AS A SPORT. You know why softball has "divisions" and "state finals" and stuff? Because it's recognized AS A SPORT, so the state runs championships and shit like that.
7) Are you seriously going to try to argue that cheerleading isn't "tweakable" in that way? Hell, you don't even need a special field with lines on it in order to do cheerleading.

Here's the real problem:

Women's sports are so undervalued that cheering on the (male) sports teams at their school has been one of the few opportunities open to young women. Yet, over the last 20 years, competitive cheerleaders have taken pom-pom shaking and turned it into a hybrid of dance and gymnastics, and have turned a side-line hobby into a sport in its own right. But good luck to them in getting their sport recognized, because if there's one thing we can all be sure of it's that something automatically STOPS being a "real sport" the moment girls prove that they can do it, and any activity in which girls can out-perform boys is definitely not a "real sport" (by definition, because boys are better at sports than girls, doncha know). Cheerleading has belonged to girls and women for years, so I don't believe there's much chance of it every being recognized as a "real sport."

Idk, the best cheerleader on our school's team when I was in highschool, according to the other cheerleaders, was a guy.

Well gosh, I guess the existence of a good male cheerleader sure shuts down everything I was saying.

Oh waitaminute...

[Maurepas]

Of course it's not a sport. As stated in the article cheerleadings primary purpose is ti support other teams. Secondly cheerleading is an individual displays of showmanship then subjectively judged. An art or music compition would not be a sport.

To me a sport fits the following criteria: a) relatively high level of athleticism, b) competive, c) defined rules, no judging, scoring/tallying of some form, with dos and don'ts of playing, d) can't be too reliant on equipment (bats,balls,helmets,goals,gloves,etc. are fine. No NASCAR; you must exert the energy to put things in play, e) shouldn't be too violent, there should be some fouls/penalties to keep things from getting out of hand (boxing and wrestling are exceptions), f) as with most things someone should be slightly better at it, the sport should have different levels h.s,colleges,minors,pros, g) it should be able to be tweaked to become more accesible for different areas,age groups, climates etc. For example ice hockey in an arena canove ti a frozen lake or floor hockey in a gym or park on rollerblades or on foot, or with a ball instead of a puck.

Preferably it a team sport but that doesn't exclude it.

I can't see how modern cheerleading competitions fail to meet any of your standards, except #3 which I don't think is remotely valid.

1) Competitive cheerleading requires, if anything, MORE athleticism than sports like basketball...after all, basketball players toss a ball around, while competitive cheerleaders toss EACH OTHER around.
2) Cheerleading is as competitive as any other sport. That is to say, at some schools cheerleading is no big deal, it's just some girls in uniforms who wave pompoms, but in other schools it's a hard core sport. In some high schools, football is a competitive sport, while at my high school our football team hadn't won a game in over a decade and our team frequently took to the field wearing marching band uniforms as a running gag.
3) Since when is something not a sport simply because it involves judges? That would mean that 90% of OLYMPIC SPORTS aren't sports.
4) Cheerleading relies on far, far less equipment than sports like hockey or baseball. Indeed, the primary "equipment" expense for competitive cheerleaders is their uniforms!
5) For one thing, cheerleading is a helluva lot less violent than football or hockey. But, more importantly, fuck that noise about how a sport can't be violent. I'm Minnesotan, motherfuckers, and if there isn't blood on the ice at the end of a hockey game then I'm demanding my damn money back.
6) Cheerleading absolutely has "levels." Of course, those levels aren't officially codified...BECAUSE IT ISN'T RECOGNIZED AS A SPORT. You know why softball has "divisions" and "state finals" and stuff? Because it's recognized AS A SPORT, so the state runs championships and shit like that.
7) Are you seriously going to try to argue that cheerleading isn't "tweakable" in that way? Hell, you don't even need a special field with lines on it in order to do cheerleading.

Here's the real problem:

Women's sports are so undervalued that cheering on the (male) sports teams at their school has been one of the few opportunities open to young women. Yet, over the last 20 years, competitive cheerleaders have taken pom-pom shaking and turned it into a hybrid of dance and gymnastics, and have turned a side-line hobby into a sport in its own right. But good luck to them in getting their sport recognized, because if there's one thing we can all be sure of it's that something automatically STOPS being a "real sport" the moment girls prove that they can do it, and any activity in which girls can out-perform boys is definitely not a "real sport" (by definition, because boys are better at sports than girls, doncha know). Cheerleading has belonged to girls and women for years, so I don't believe there's much chance of it every being recognized as a "real sport."

Idk, the best cheerleader on our school's team when I was in highschool, according to the other cheerleaders, was a guy.

Well gosh, I guess the existence of a good male cheerleader sure shuts down everything I was saying.

Oh waitaminute...

I wasn't arguing with your point, just saying that it isn't a given for boys to be outperformed in it is all. Not everyone's trying to shut you down.

[Bottle]

I wasn't arguing with your point, just saying that it isn't a given for boys to be outperformed in it is all. Not everyone's trying to shut you down.

It's an exception that proves the rule in this case. The thing about competitive cheerleading is that it has been designed for female athletes for the majority of the time that it's been around. Not exclusively for girls, mind you, and I'm absolutely not saying that guys CAN'T be good at it. My point is that most people in Western culture think that "real sports" just so happen to be activities that just so happen to be tailored for the strengths of the male body (upper body strength, larger size, etc). All the major "real sports" we have right now were originally invented by dudes, for dudes, and every single one of them has officially excluded women and girls for most of its history. There are always girls who excel at those sports anyways, of course, just like there are boys who excel at "girl's" sports, but that doesn't eliminate the fact that "sport" and "maleness" are rather linked in our social consciousness.

Maybe somebody else can help me out here, but I'm having trouble thinking of any other currently-played sport that originated and has thrived as a "girl's sport" rather than a "boy's sport." Like, I know where I lived there were some fucking badass female hockey players, but hockey started out as a "boy's sport" that girls had to break into...can anybody name a sport where the opposite is true?

[Maurepas]

I wasn't arguing with your point, just saying that it isn't a given for boys to be outperformed in it is all. Not everyone's trying to shut you down.

It's an exception that proves the rule in this case. The thing about competitive cheerleading is that it has been designed for female athletes for the majority of the time that it's been around. Not exclusively for girls, mind you, and I'm absolutely not saying that guys CAN'T be good at it. My point is that most people in Western culture think that "real sports" just so happen to be activities that just so happen to be tailored for the strengths of the male body (upper body strength, larger size, etc). All the major "real sports" we have right now were originally invented by dudes, for dudes, and every single one of them has officially excluded women and girls for most of its history. There are always girls who excel at those sports anyways, of course, just like there are boys who excel at "girl's" sports, but that doesn't eliminate the fact that "sport" and "maleness" are rather linked in our social consciousness.

Maybe somebody else can help me out here, but I'm having trouble thinking of any other currently-played sport that originated and has thrived as a "girl's sport" rather than a "boy's sport." Like, I know where I lived there were some fucking badass female hockey players, but hockey started out as a "boy's sport" that girls had to break into...can anybody name a sport where the opposite is true?

Well, it's a rather US-centric view, but, Soccer's always been that way here, I think.

[Forsakia]

Here's the real problem:

Women's sports are so undervalued that cheering on the (male) sports teams at their school has been one of the few opportunities open to young women. Yet, over the last 20 years, competitive cheerleaders have taken pom-pom shaking and turned it into a hybrid of dance and gymnastics, and have turned a side-line hobby into a sport in its own right. But good luck to them in getting their sport recognized, because if there's one thing we can all be sure of it's that something automatically STOPS being a "real sport" the moment girls prove that they can do it, and any activity in which girls can out-perform boys is definitely not a "real sport" (by definition, because boys are better at sports than girls, doncha know). Cheerleading has belonged to girls and women for years, so I don't believe there's much chance of it every being recognized as a "real sport."

No, it gets questioned because as you yourself says it has large elements of dance in it. Take figure skating, men and women compete in equal numbers, but given its dance-like nature it has its sporting credentials questioned.

Ultimately the actual definition of a sport and where something crosses into dancing for example is not something you can nail down scientifically. The cultural lines are too blurry for that, and ultimately whether something is a sport or not is really a cultural decision.

Men have physical advantages over women. That is simple undeniable fact. So any sport where it is plausible for a woman to outperform men is most likely either a sport with low male participation for whatever reason, or one where actual athleticism, speed, strength, etc is not necessarily of vital importance. Take motor racing, heavily dominated by men but with plentiful arguments/flamewars/etc over whether it counts as a sport because of the level of importance the engine etc is part of.

Given "real sports" tend to be judged on how much athleticism is in them, there's inevitably going to be an overlap between sports women can be the best at and sports that have their status as questioned. It's largely correlation rather than causation.

[Bottle]

I wasn't arguing with your point, just saying that it isn't a given for boys to be outperformed in it is all. Not everyone's trying to shut you down.

It's an exception that proves the rule in this case. The thing about competitive cheerleading is that it has been designed for female athletes for the majority of the time that it's been around. Not exclusively for girls, mind you, and I'm absolutely not saying that guys CAN'T be good at it. My point is that most people in Western culture think that "real sports" just so happen to be activities that just so happen to be tailored for the strengths of the male body (upper body strength, larger size, etc). All the major "real sports" we have right now were originally invented by dudes, for dudes, and every single one of them has officially excluded women and girls for most of its history. There are always girls who excel at those sports anyways, of course, just like there are boys who excel at "girl's" sports, but that doesn't eliminate the fact that "sport" and "maleness" are rather linked in our social consciousness.

Maybe somebody else can help me out here, but I'm having trouble thinking of any other currently-played sport that originated and has thrived as a "girl's sport" rather than a "boy's sport." Like, I know where I lived there were some fucking badass female hockey players, but hockey started out as a "boy's sport" that girls had to break into...can anybody name a sport where the opposite is true?

Well, it's a rather US-centric view, but, Soccer's always been that way here, I think.

Hmm, gotta admit I don't know much about the history of soccer in the US. Soccer was almost unheard of where I grew up...it was a novelty, like badminton, that we learned to play during a week of PhysEd class. But nobody really PLAYED soccer. So I'd have to leave that one up to other people.

[Maurepas]

I wasn't arguing with your point, just saying that it isn't a given for boys to be outperformed in it is all. Not everyone's trying to shut you down.

It's an exception that proves the rule in this case. The thing about competitive cheerleading is that it has been designed for female athletes for the majority of the time that it's been around. Not exclusively for girls, mind you, and I'm absolutely not saying that guys CAN'T be good at it. My point is that most people in Western culture think that "real sports" just so happen to be activities that just so happen to be tailored for the strengths of the male body (upper body strength, larger size, etc). All the major "real sports" we have right now were originally invented by dudes, for dudes, and every single one of them has officially excluded women and girls for most of its history. There are always girls who excel at those sports anyways, of course, just like there are boys who excel at "girl's" sports, but that doesn't eliminate the fact that "sport" and "maleness" are rather linked in our social consciousness.

Maybe somebody else can help me out here, but I'm having trouble thinking of any other currently-played sport that originated and has thrived as a "girl's sport" rather than a "boy's sport." Like, I know where I lived there were some fucking badass female hockey players, but hockey started out as a "boy's sport" that girls had to break into...can anybody name a sport where the opposite is true?

Well, it's a rather US-centric view, but, Soccer's always been that way here, I think.

Hmm, gotta admit I don't know much about the history of soccer in the US. Soccer was almost unheard of where I grew up...it was a novelty, like badminton, that we learned to play during a week of PhysEd class. But nobody really PLAYED soccer. So I'd have to leave that one up to other people.

Well, where I'm from it's what everyone's sister or daughter played. My sister played it.

[Bottle]

Here's the real problem:

Women's sports are so undervalued that cheering on the (male) sports teams at their school has been one of the few opportunities open to young women. Yet, over the last 20 years, competitive cheerleaders have taken pom-pom shaking and turned it into a hybrid of dance and gymnastics, and have turned a side-line hobby into a sport in its own right. But good luck to them in getting their sport recognized, because if there's one thing we can all be sure of it's that something automatically STOPS being a "real sport" the moment girls prove that they can do it, and any activity in which girls can out-perform boys is definitely not a "real sport" (by definition, because boys are better at sports than girls, doncha know). Cheerleading has belonged to girls and women for years, so I don't believe there's much chance of it every being recognized as a "real sport."

No, it gets questioned because as you yourself says it has large elements of dance in it. Take figure skating, men and women compete in equal numbers, but given its dance-like nature it has its sporting credentials questioned.

Ultimately the actual definition of a sport and where something crosses into dancing for example is not something you can nail down scientifically. The cultural lines are too blurry for that, and ultimately whether something is a sport or not is really a cultural decision.

Which, honestly, I don't get. How is dance less of a sport than, say, wrestling?

Men have physical advantages over women. That is simple undeniable fact.

And women have physical advantages over men. So?

So any sport where it is plausible for a woman to outperform men is most likely either a sport with low male participation for whatever reason, or one where actual athleticism, speed, strength, etc is not necessarily of vital importance. Take motor racing, heavily dominated by men but with plentiful arguments/flamewars/etc over whether it counts as a sport because of the level of importance the engine etc is part of.

See, there you go, assuming that "athleticism" must necessarily mean the things that the MALE BODY is best at. Women consistently out perform men in areas of flexibility, balance, and pound-for-pound endurance. Women's bodies are consistently stronger when it comes to enduring extremes of heat and cold. Women's senses are, on average, keener than men's. Women tend to be smaller in size which (if you actually think about it) is an ADVANTAGE in many situations, like trying to squeeze through small spaces, or fit into a small area, or perform a task that is easier if you have lower body weight.

But when we talk about "athleticism," we talk about things like ability to lift heavy stuff, or tendency for longer legs, or activities that just flat-out favor those who are physically larger. Our concept of sports revolves around the male form and the strengths of the male body. Whether or not something is a "sport" depends on whether or not it requires activities that the male body tends to be better at. Just a tiny bit circular, in my opinion.

[Grave_n_idle]

Of course it's not a sport. As stated in the article cheerleadings primary purpose is ti support other teams. Secondly cheerleading is an individual displays of showmanship then subjectively judged. An art or music compition would not be a sport.

To me a sport fits the following criteria: a) relatively high level of athleticism, b) competive, c) defined rules, no judging, scoring/tallying of some form, with dos and don'ts of playing, d) can't be too reliant on equipment (bats,balls,helmets,goals,gloves,etc. are fine. No NASCAR; you must exert the energy to put things in play, e) shouldn't be too violent, there should be some fouls/penalties to keep things from getting out of hand (boxing and wrestling are exceptions), f) as with most things someone should be slightly better at it, the sport should have different levels h.s,colleges,minors,pros, g) it should be able to be tweaked to become more accesible for different areas,age groups, climates etc. For example ice hockey in an arena canove ti a frozen lake or floor hockey in a gym or park on rollerblades or on foot, or with a ball instead of a puck.

Preferably it a team sport but that doesn't exclude it.

Competitive cheerleading meets all your requirements.

*is confused*

[Grave_n_idle]

Before I get banned for verbally killing Arborlawn for his antedeluvian views on male/female relations (provided he is serious about them), I leave you with this ...

Replacing volleyball with competitive cheerleading!? I'm with the judge on this one.

http://backporch.fanhouse.com/2010/07/2 ... a-sport%2F

Eh... I've seen people argue golf is a sport. Fucking golf.

If golf is a sport, cheerleading must be.

[Maurepas]

Before I get banned for verbally killing Arborlawn for his antedeluvian views on male/female relations (provided he is serious about them), I leave you with this ...

Replacing volleyball with competitive cheerleading!? I'm with the judge on this one.

http://backporch.fanhouse.com/2010/07/2 ... a-sport%2F

Eh... I've seen people argue golf is a sport. Fucking golf.

If golf is a sport, cheerleading must be.

Golf isn't a sport, it's a recreational activity, there's a difference,

[Bottle]

Before I get banned for verbally killing Arborlawn for his antedeluvian views on male/female relations (provided he is serious about them), I leave you with this ...

Replacing volleyball with competitive cheerleading!? I'm with the judge on this one.

http://backporch.fanhouse.com/2010/07/2 ... a-sport%2F

Eh... I've seen people argue golf is a sport. Fucking golf.

If golf is a sport, cheerleading must be.

Curling, baby, curling. Best sport ever.

[Imsogone]

I hike, more specifically I hike in the mountains. By almost every definition you all give, mountain hiking is not a sport. Strangely, though, mountain biking and trail running are considered sports. What's the difference?

[Imsogone]

I hike, more specifically I hike in the mountains. By almost every definition you all give, mountain hiking is not a sport. Strangely, though, mountain biking and trail running are considered sports. What's the difference?

Competitive options

So, all things being equal, competition is what defines a sport. Then the Miss America Pageant is a sport.

[Forsakia]

Here's the real problem:

Women's sports are so undervalued that cheering on the (male) sports teams at their school has been one of the few opportunities open to young women. Yet, over the last 20 years, competitive cheerleaders have taken pom-pom shaking and turned it into a hybrid of dance and gymnastics, and have turned a side-line hobby into a sport in its own right. But good luck to them in getting their sport recognized, because if there's one thing we can all be sure of it's that something automatically STOPS being a "real sport" the moment girls prove that they can do it, and any activity in which girls can out-perform boys is definitely not a "real sport" (by definition, because boys are better at sports than girls, doncha know). Cheerleading has belonged to girls and women for years, so I don't believe there's much chance of it every being recognized as a "real sport."

No, it gets questioned because as you yourself says it has large elements of dance in it. Take figure skating, men and women compete in equal numbers, but given its dance-like nature it has its sporting credentials questioned.

Ultimately the actual definition of a sport and where something crosses into dancing for example is not something you can nail down scientifically. The cultural lines are too blurry for that, and ultimately whether something is a sport or not is really a cultural decision.

Which, honestly, I don't get. How is dance less of a sport than, say, wrestling?

I could try and make a point about dancing having aesthetics as being of major importance, while sport doesn't care if you do it ugly as long as you win. But really it's a cultural decision, sports is a cultural thing and the boundaries cultural ones.

Men have physical advantages over women. That is simple undeniable fact.

And women have physical advantages over men. So?

So any sport where it is plausible for a woman to outperform men is most likely either a sport with low male participation for whatever reason, or one where actual athleticism, speed, strength, etc is not necessarily of vital importance. Take motor racing, heavily dominated by men but with plentiful arguments/flamewars/etc over whether it counts as a sport because of the level of importance the engine etc is part of.

See, there you go, assuming that "athleticism" must necessarily mean the things that the MALE BODY is best at. Women consistently out perform men in areas of flexibility, balance, and pound-for-pound endurance. Women's bodies are consistently stronger when it comes to enduring extremes of heat and cold. Women's senses are, on average, keener than men's. Women tend to be smaller in size which (if you actually think about it) is an ADVANTAGE in many situations, like trying to squeeze through small spaces, or fit into a small area, or perform a task that is easier if you have lower body weight.

But when we talk about "athleticism," we talk about things like ability to lift heavy stuff, or tendency for longer legs, or activities that just flat-out favor those who are physically larger. Our concept of sports revolves around the male form and the strengths of the male body. Whether or not something is a "sport" depends on whether or not it requires activities that the male body tends to be better at. Just a tiny bit circular, in my opinion.

[/quote]
Our concept of athleticism is based around what can be obviously measured and is of obvious benefit in physical terms. Strength, speed, stamina, etc are the main backbones of athleticism, we don't do running races for people who have short legs for example, male or female even if in certain situations it might be an advantage, because overall we care about who can get from point a to point b the fastest irrespective of anything else. Balance and flexibility are at best minor parts of it. Temperature extremes (there's a fun sport to watch) sharper senses etc.

You can try and argue definitions or gerrymander what we consider "athletic" etc. But what it boils down to is not that sport was based around what the male body was good at in some sort of conspiracy. It's that men happen to be better at the most basic and obvious physical attributes there are.

[Grave_n_idle]

I hike, more specifically I hike in the mountains. By almost every definition you all give, mountain hiking is not a sport. Strangely, though, mountain biking and trail running are considered sports. What's the difference?

Competitive options

So, all things being equal, competition is what defines a sport. Then the Miss America Pageant is a sport.

By that definition, so is 'the soggy biscuit game'.

[Grave_n_idle]

Before I get banned for verbally killing Arborlawn for his antedeluvian views on male/female relations (provided he is serious about them), I leave you with this ...

Replacing volleyball with competitive cheerleading!? I'm with the judge on this one.

http://backporch.fanhouse.com/2010/07/2 ... a-sport%2F

Eh... I've seen people argue golf is a sport. Fucking golf.

If golf is a sport, cheerleading must be.

Curling, baby, curling. Best sport ever.

I can't get too deep into that debate. Curling is one of the few sports I actually willingly watch...

[Grave_n_idle]

Before I get banned for verbally killing Arborlawn for his antedeluvian views on male/female relations (provided he is serious about them), I leave you with this ...

Replacing volleyball with competitive cheerleading!? I'm with the judge on this one.

http://backporch.fanhouse.com/2010/07/2 ... a-sport%2F

Eh... I've seen people argue golf is a sport. Fucking golf.

If golf is a sport, cheerleading must be.

Golf isn't a sport, it's a recreational activity, there's a difference,

Ah, but I've seen it argued as a sport. Me, I think it's a game, and a pointless one at that. Hell, I'd rather watch cricket!

[EvilDarkMagicians]

I can't get too deep into that debate. Curling is one of the few sports I actually willingly watch...

[Cyber Utopia]

Of course competitive cheerleading isn't a sport. It's for women. And we all know women's 'sports' aren't real. However we have to let them feel equal, or we all end up with earache, so I wouldn't see the harm in classing it as a 'sport'.

[Glorious Homeland]

Why do the Americans always have to make shit activities up and brand them "sports" so the participants can't get upset in knowing they're just competing in an activity, rather than being glorified for doing it?

No, cheerleading is not a sport, televised "professional wrestling" is not a sport, eating is not a sport. All shit ideas. Let's try to be conservative rather than progressive when it comes to such definitions and classifications, please.

Er, why?

"Sport is a sacred institution which is fundamental to our way of life. This forum affirms that the term "sport" refers only to physical activities involving at least one man and one ball"

Really, what does it matter how the word is defined?

Language's effective use is extremely important. Sloppiness leads to miscommunication, ignorance.

[Oceangoing Pirates]

I am a bit offended by this. I was a competitive cheerleader for four years, and was a volleyball player for the same amount of time. I 1000% percent think that not only should cheerleading be considered a sport, but I think it is much more difficult than volleyball as well. This is ridiculous that a federal judge would say it isn't. What is his reasoning behind it? It meets all of those listed requirements, and competition is the primary goal of a competitive cheer squad.